Why a conflict like the one between America and Iran is bringing Europe’s old ideas of peace back into focus.
There are moments in history when the world suddenly seems old again. The current conflict between the United States and Iran is one such moment. Missiles, drones, air strikes – the technical forms have changed, but the political drama seems familiar: mistrust, power projection, escalation. And yet it is a strange irony of history that it is precisely at such moments that the voices of the past become audible again. Voices from a time when Europe itself was a continent of permanent war – and at the same time began to think about peace.
In the late 19th century, politicians, lawyers, writers, and idealists met at international peace congresses in Rome, Bern, and elsewhere. These were not summits of power. They were rather gatherings of hope. They discussed arbitration tribunals between states, diplomatic mediation, and the possibility of civilizing conflicts. Today, such ideas seem almost self-evident. But at the time, they were revolutionary.
The idea that war did not have to be the natural means of politics was by no means a consensus in 19th-century Europe. Many considered war a legitimate instrument of national greatness. Military victories established states, shifted borders, and created national myths. It was into this world that the Austrian pacifist Bertha von Suttner wrote her novel Die Waffen nieder! (Lay Down Your Arms!). The book was less literature than a political statement. Suttner did not portray war as a heroic event, but as a series of human catastrophes. Her central idea was remarkably modern: wars arise not only from interests, but also from habits of thought. As long as societies accept war as a legitimate means, it will always return.
Today, this statement sounds almost self-evident. But it was provocative at a time when military parades were part of political normality. As we know, history took a different course. A few decades after the peace congresses, Europe plunged into the First World War. The catastrophe of 1914 was also the failure of that early peace movement. But its ideas did not disappear.
The British philosopher Bertrand Russell revisited this idea in the 20th century. For Russell, war in the age of modern technology was not only morally questionable, but simply irrational. The more powerful weapons become, the more senseless their use becomes. In the atomic age, Russell argued, a major war could no longer be won. It could only be lost – by all parties involved. One might think that this insight is self-evident today. But international politics seems to forget it time and again.
In the current conflict between Washington and Tehran, too, the dynamics follow the familiar logic of deterrence. Each side tries to demonstrate strength. Every military action is intended to deter the other side from taking further steps. But it is precisely this logic that often leads to escalation.
Another figure from the history of the peace movement seems almost paradoxical today: Alfred Nobel. The man who invented dynamite and thus revolutionized industrial warfare also became the founder of the world’s most famous peace prize. Nobel recognized that technical power alone is not a political solution. His peace prize was intended to honor those who strive for understanding between nations. It was a symbolic attempt to highlight a different tradition in politics—a tradition of mediation.
Today, this tradition sometimes seems to be falling into oblivion. Military options are discussed more quickly than diplomatic ones. Sanctions replace talks, threats replace negotiations. But history shows that wars are rarely ended by military superiority. They usually end through negotiations, often after long detours. The Cold War, for example, was not decided by military victory, but by a slow political détente. Treaties, summit meetings, diplomatic channels – all of these created a fragile but functioning order.
Such an order is still lacking in the Middle East today. The conflict between the US and Iran is therefore more than a regional dispute. It is a symptom of a world in which international institutions have become weaker and geopolitical rivalries stronger again. That is precisely why it would be a mistake to view the conflict exclusively in military terms.
The real challenge lies in creating a political structure that prevents escalation. A new nuclear agreement, regional security guarantees, and international mediation would be possible steps. Europe could play an important role in this. Throughout its history, the continent has learned that lasting stability cannot be achieved through power politics alone. European unification itself is a result of this insight—an attempt to replace conflicts with institutions. Perhaps this is one of the quiet lessons of history: peace agreements rarely emerge in times of calm. They usually arise after crises, when the alternatives become apparent.
The conflict between America and Iran is still a long way from producing such insight. But that is precisely why it is worth remembering those voices that were already thinking about peace more than a hundred years ago. The peace congresses in Rome and Bern were not spectacular events. They did not prevent war and did not immediately change world politics. But they planted an idea in the political culture: the idea that conflicts between states do not necessarily have to be decided on the battlefield. This idea is perhaps more relevant today than ever before. For in a world where wars are becoming increasingly efficient in technical terms, one old truth remains: the most difficult victory is not the military one. It is the victory over the logic of war itself.
KK